Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the exact visibility scope (team-shared with user_id IS NULL plus the caller's own entries) and the security-relevant guarantee that secret values are never returned. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two focused sentences: the action and scope come first, followed by the key return-value constraint. There is no filler, no repetition of schema details, and no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-optional-param, read-only list tool with strong schema coverage and annotations, the description adequately covers what is returned, what is excluded, and who can see what. It stops short of listing exact metadata fields or pagination behavior, but nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single optional team_id parameter is fully described in the schema, including fallback behavior for API keys and the requirement for OAuth callers to pass the target team. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the schema-covered baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List env-var secrets') with a precise scope: team-shared entries plus the caller's own personal entries. It also distinguishes itself from value-returning secret tools by explicitly noting that secret values are never exposed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an implicit usage context: use this to enumerate visible secrets and obtain metadata/keys only, not values. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like getSecret or state when to prefer them, so alternative routing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.